Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 951)

Statement Upheld Charging 13-Aug-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council failed to explain in a timely and complete manner, how the charges for care for Mrs B’s mother, Mrs C arose. On the evidence available we find that the Council delayed excessively in amending the charges and sending out correct invoices. It exacerbated the confusion and frustration caused to Mr and Mrs B by its failure to attend a prearranged meeting or provide a full coherent explanation to them. The Council has agreed to waive the outstanding charge and pay Mr and Mrs B £150 for their time and trouble.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 395)

Statement Upheld Charging 12-Aug-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault with the way the Council assessed Ms C’s finances and its application of the minimum income guarantee to determine her contribution to a care package. There was a delay in the Council’s response to the complaint and a small discrepancy in the calculation of the first week’s contribution. The Council has apologised for the delay and has amended the account to provide a credit for the discrepancy and these are appropriate remedies.

Isle of Wight Council (19 015 180)

Statement Upheld Charging 12-Aug-2020

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council has not properly considered disability related costs relating to Miss Y’s support needs. The Council was at fault because it has not been clear about how it has calculated disability related costs and did not consider Miss Y’s need for support properly. Miss Y has spent money for her carer to support her. The Council has agreed to explain disability related costs decisions in more detail. The Council should also review Miss Y’s needs.

London Borough of Bromley (19 009 206)

Statement Not upheld Charging 10-Aug-2020

Summary: The Council gave adequate costs information about the costs of adult social care after a free period of reablement ended.

Cumbria County Council (19 015 988)

Statement Not upheld Charging 10-Aug-2020

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect his mother, Mrs M, from financial abuse from her daughter Ms Z, for a period of five years while Mrs M had dementia and was living in a care home. He said he and his mother were financially disadvantaged by this. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault and there are other organisations better placed to deal with the matters Mr X complained about.

Peterborough City Council (19 012 728)

Statement Upheld Charging 05-Aug-2020

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council carried out a financial assessment and its decision that her mother, Mrs Y, should pay the full costs of her care. The Council was at fault for not considering two gift periods separately and for not explaining the reasons for its decision in February 2019. This caused uncertainty for Mrs X and delay in the review process. The Council treated the two periods separately through the review process and revised its decision. There is no fault in the way it reached its revised decision. It should apologise to Mrs X and review its processes to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

West Berkshire Council (20 001 357)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 04-Aug-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s application of tariff income in its calculation of his mother’s contribution to her care costs. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Care Worldwide (Oldham) Limited (19 019 727)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 03-Aug-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the fees his mother, Mrs Y, was charged by the Care Provider. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 332)

Statement Upheld Charging 30-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his wife’s care and the decision to backdate charges for a second evening carer between 10 December 2018 and 7 July 2019. There is nothing in the Council’s records to justify the backdated charge, as Mrs X has been paying for a second evening carer all along. The Council has agreed to withdraw the backdated charges, apologise, pay financial redress and take action to prevent a repetition of the problems experienced by Mr & Mrs X.

Norfolk County Council (19 007 571)

Statement Upheld Charging 29-Jul-2020

Summary: The Council delayed in responding to Mrs B’s complaint and has apologised and offered a payment in recognition of her time and trouble. However, the Council was not at fault in issuing invoices to Mrs B for outstanding care home fees for the late Mrs K, as Mrs B was the executor of Mrs K’s estate.